البينة على من ادعى واليمين على من أنكر"Clear evidence is upon whoever claimed and the oath is upon whoever denied."

That is, the claimant must furnish clear evidence but all the defendant has to do is to swear that he did not commit the offense.

Just to counter the devil's advocate, we should articulate why the claimant in our case is the pro-abrogation and not the anti-abrogation. It is not difficult, but we should quote crisp statements by scholars rather than be argumentative (convincingly or otherwise) about it.

Statements of the burden of proof are plenty. Those that come from anti-abrogation scholars are obviously expected. An example is this one,

Are there verses in the Quran that are no longer obligatory, because other mandates replaced them? Or, in other words: are there abrogated verses in the Quran, and should not be followed? This is a dangerous issue! He who talks [in favor] about it must produce the certain evidence before what he wants to say, since the Quran has been proven certain and all of its text must be held on tight and followed.

Dr. Nassaar quoted him further,

Muhammad Al-Khudhari (Bek) wrote:

There is not one verse claimed abrogated but that the argument against abrogation was clearer and preponderant.

As if the Quran has become a field for frivolity of opinions and mixing them up. What does not agree with their opinion, they seek for it a verse that abrogates it, loading it with what it cannot bear, and turn a blind eye to what differs from their opinion or stands in its way.

Translation:Some exegetes have excessively claimed abrogation in many Quranic verses, without a sufficient evidence to confirm abrogation. The basis is that Quranic verses have enduring implications, and their meanings are intended where they are. It is not permissible to accept their abrogation for the slightest suspicion, or because of a weak evidence that is not strong enough to lift the affirmed implication of text.The examiner must research the sources of the meanings of Quranic verses in depth and with accuracy, and to interpret text that seems contradictory with a proper and sound meaning that fits the context and is compatible with the law in general and is not in total conflict with a confirmed teaching whose implication has been established. It is not allowed to understand it in a way that causes one to consider it abrogated.

But I'd like to collect in this post all the quotes by the pro-abrogation scholars in which they unambiguously state that the burden of proof of the abrogation doctrine is upon them. I'll link to this post from the Bookmarks announcement, so we can easily find it.

It is not permitted for a Muslim who believes in God and the Last Day to say about something in the Quran or the Sunna 'this is abrogated' except with certainty because God has said "And We did not send any messenger except to be obeyed by permission of God" (from 4:65) and "Follow, [O mankind], what has been revealed to you from your Lord" (from 7:3). Therefore, following everything that God has sent in the Quran or through the words of His prophet is mandatory. If someone says that something is abrogated, this mandates not following it, and the obligation to follow it is dropped. This would be a blatant disobedience of God, and an explicit disagreement, unless there is a proof from God that the statement is correct. Otherwise, the person would be a falsifying transgressor. Whoever allows otherwise would be asserting the annulment of the entire Islamic law, because there is no difference between his claim of abrogation in a verse or a hadeeth and someone else's claim of abrogation in another verse or another hadeeth. This way, nothing of the Quran or the Sunna will hold, and this would be departure from Islam. What is affirmed through certainty cannot be negated through suspicion.

It is not permitted for a Muslim who believes in God and the Last Day to say about something in the Quran or the Sunna 'this is abrogated' except with certainty. What has the possibility of not being abrogation cannot be said to be abrogating or abrogated except with a a proof that mandates concession to it.

The rulings, once established upon the assignee, a claim of abrogation in them cannot be without a verified text, because its initial establishment on the assignee is a verified text, so lifting it after knowing that it is established cannot be except with verified knowledge.

Abrogation is not proved by a Sahabi saying "The ruling was such and such then it was abrogated" because of the possibility that what was said comes from analysis by the Sahabi, not originating from the Prophet (PBUH)

● In his book الإحكام في أصول الأحكام, volume 2, page 293,

Al-Aamidi wrote:

Abrogation cannot be determined by analysis or by interpretations of exegetes.

● In his book فتح الباري شرح صحيح البخاري, volume 11, page 409,

Ibn Hajar Al-`Asqalaani wrote:

Abrogation cannot be concluded by probability, especially when reconciliation [between verses] is doable.

● In his book مناهل العرفان, Volume 2, page 107,

Abdul-`Azheem Az-Zurqaani wrote:

Applying the two leads (one for and another against a premise] has more priority over applying one and neglecting the other. The origin in rulings is their staying, not their abrogation.

It is a self-evident truth in every law that the law giver is the only one who has the right to abrogate what he has ruled. And abrogation can only be by an address from him, just like the previous ruling was by an address from him.

The events of abrogation cannot be known except by reception from the law giver himself.

● In his book, الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 9, Dr. Husayn Nassaar reports what Dr. Subhi As-Saalih wrote about abrogation, referring to the scholars who classified the Chapters of the Quran as either containing or free from abrogated verses:

Dr. Subhi As-Saalih wrote:

That classification leaves only 43 chapters as Muhkam (robust, i.e., unabrogated), as if the rule in the Quran is abrogation and the exception is non-abrogation! As if the foundation of the verse of the Quran is to be subject to abrogation.

The truth is that the foundation of the verses of the Quran is non-abrogation, unless an explicit evidence of abrogation is established, then there is no escape from taking it.

An established rule in the subject of abrogation is that abrogation is not claimed unless it is impossible to reconcile the two verses. Claiming non-abrogation, with a reason and an aspect, is much preferred to claiming abrogation.

Additionally, the following quotes all acknowledge that the term "Naskh" meant to the Sahaaba much more than abrogation, and therefore, there is a burden of proof that what the Sahaaba were referring to in their narrations was abrogation and not the wide range of meanings of naskh:

● In his book أعلام الموقعين, volume 1, page 35,

Ibn Al-Qayyim wrote:

What most of the predecessors meant by Naskh is the lifting of the ruling (which is the definition made by the later generations) as well as the specification of generalities, limitation of the unlimited, elaborating the vague, etc. They even called exceptions, conditions and identification naskh because it all amends the apparent meaning of the previous expression.

Whoever examines what they said will find plenty of that and will therefore resolve much of the problems caused by viewing their narrations using the later definition of naskh.

● In his book الموافقات, volume 3, page 105,

Ash-Shaatibi wrote:

What is apparent from the words of the predecessors is that Naskh to them is more general than what the foundationists (الأصوليون) defined it. They would call the limiting of the unlimited naskh, the specifying of a generality, immediately or later, they call that too naskh. They called the elaboration of the vague naskh. And they called the cancellation of a ruling naskh.

● In his exegesis الجامع لأحكام القرآن, volume 2, page 65,

Al-Qurtubi wrote:

The antecedents call specification naskh as expansion and figure of speech.

Mansookh (the amended) includes, in the definition of the Predecessors, any apparent meaning set aside because of preponderant conflictor, such as specification of a generality and limitation of an unlimited.

And,

Ibn Taymiya wrote:

The word naskh is a brief, for the predecessors used it in regards to any implication of a verse, such as generality, absoluteness, etc.

I'd like to collect in this post all the quotes by the pro-abrogation scholars in which they unambiguously state that the burden of proof of the abrogation doctrine is upon them. I'll link to this post from the Bookmarks announcement, so we can easily find it.

Good idea. I confess that I forgot about this thread when I posted some of the burden-of-proof posts, and these posts need a central hub.

I also see that the contrast between burden of proof for individual abrogation claims versus for the occurrence of abrogation in the Quran in the first place was discussed earlier in this thread. This contrast is an important point that we should elaborate with evidence and scholarly opinions as much as we can.

Just to counter the devil's advocate, we should articulate why the claimant in our case is the pro-abrogation and not the anti-abrogation. It is not difficult,

One easy way to establish this is simple chronology! The first claim made by anyone that has anything to do with abrogation were claims for abrogation by narrations and authored books. Thus, the pro-abrogation folk are the claimant.

In the introduction of this book, the editor Mostafa Abul-Qader 'Ata articulates the burden of proof for individual abrogation claims (pages 3-4, my translation):

Quote:

For establishing abrogation, there has to be two items revealed by God that are truly conflicting such that the conflict cannot be avoided by the possibility of reconciling them through any facet of interpretation.

Mind you, this statement came only two paragraphs after he mentioned the widow's verses as an exemplary case of abrogation.

In his book قصص الحيوان في القرآن, page 167, Ash-Sha`raawi points out the meaning of the word الحق as "the constant in which there is no change or replacement." He says that in his exegesis of verse 5:27. Then he quotes for example,

There is no quarrel about what the word الحق means. Ash-Sha`raawi's explanation is indeed what scholars agreed on. Now, verse 17:105 states that the Quran was revealed with it, therefore it must be concluded that it contains nothing that is subject to change or replacement. Abrogation of ruling is a change. How do the pro-abrogation folk explain that away?

In his book قصص الحيوان في القرآن, page 167, Ash-Sha`raawi points out the meaning of the word الحق as "the constant in which there is no change or replacement." He says that in his exegesis of verse 5:27. Then he quotes for example,

There is no quarrel about what the word الحق means. Ash-Sha`raawi's explanation is indeed what scholars agreed on. Now, verse 17:105 states that the Quran was revealed with it, therefore it must be concluded that it contains nothing that is subject to change or replacement. Abrogation of ruling is a change. How do the pro-abrogation folk explain that away?

Absolutely fantastic. This belongs to Quranic evidence that there is no abrogation, and it is an original observation that I have not seen enywhere.

It is very much worthwhile to substantiate linguistically or from religious evidence that Shaarawy's interpretation of الحق is uncontested. Your analysis of 17:105 will then be very compelling evidence against the abrogation doctrine. It is also worthwhile to see what the exegetes have said about the verse. Some pro-abrogation exegetes may well have interpreted it the way you did.

A good example of the second criterion above is in this verse, prohibiting following anything other than what God has revealed,

In this verse, God orders us to follow what He revealed AND forbids us from following anything else. Both components make the order a mandate. Thus, when we are confronted with an issue where a mortal has ruled one way and the Quran has ruled differently, we have no choice but to favor the ruling of the Quran.

It is therefore IMHO incumbent on any pro-abrogation scholar to show cause. The abrogation doctrine is a clear violation of the mandate in 7:3 to discard any and all rulings not consistent with the Quran.

The fact that many prominent scholars have rejected the abrogation doctrine altogether and showed valid reasoning for so doing and refuted every abrogation claim ever made, should be a red alert to the possibility that the doctrine is bogus. Yet, it is advocated by a large number of equally prominent scholars.

So, how would disputes about a matter of this import be settled? After all, we are talking here about cancelling orders from God!

Well, it so happens that God told us, in no ambiguous language, how to settle disputes,

It is God who decides, not the scholars! And we know for certain, and it is agreed to by all scholars, that God never said about any of His verses that He has abrogated them. And neither did His delegate, the Prophet (PBUH).

God also tells us that we should not seek ruling outside the Quran,

Thus we learn that nothing may overrule the Quran.

Some may argue that God did delegate to scholars, and may quote this verse for evidence,

My humble reply would be that if a scholar is unable to reconcile what appears to him to be a contradiction between two verses, and therefore declares one of them to abrogate the other, then he is not, with all due respect, "one of those who can draw correct conclusions".

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum